Another, and most obviously, the correct way of thinking, is that fashion is a force built up by creative individuals looking for an outlet for their inspirational thoughts. After all, there are huge amounts of inspiration taken from the arts, politics, economy and society, it would be extremely ill-mannered to assume that fashion is merely clothing.
Over the years, fashion is an area that has seen extreme developments and changes in terms of the creative process, design, production and promotion, and the industry is as popular as ever. With well over 100 years of documented fashion a fierce debate surrounds the originality of particular fashion houses today – 20plus, with some being established from as far back as 1837 – there is obvious reasoning as to why these designers can no longer produce work – but are their replacements tough enough to carry on already well established fashion houses?
If 20th century fashion was to be separated into two halves, one would be the womanly, feminine era – the definition of a classic silhouetted body and the other – well a rather experimental period in fashion. There appeared to be a fashion time bomb waiting to explode, and as society begun to let loose with morals and social attitudes, fashion followed suit. This came via experimentation with bold colours and fabric changes, silhouette change and the attitude towards fashion became more carefree, and wild as ready-to-wear was popularised with the middle classes.
Hannah MacGibben has taken on the crucial role for Chloe since Gaby Aghion left the company she built in 1966, and 7 designers have taken on the challenge of the fashion house. Since its establishment in 1932, Nina Ricci has taken a similar pattern for designers, with 5 from 1954 until two years ago when Olivier Theyskens was assigned the role. For fashion houses worth an awful lot of money, it seems rather dangerous for the design role to be flitting from person to person like sand through feet.
On an outside reflection, questions could arise in relation to how these designers could stick to the original aesthetics of the brands that have been built up the past, as is it an incredibly difficult torch to pass.
To be given a successfully established fashion house, with a long standing designer who has been praised by all in the industry, who have created looks and silhouettes that are built into fashion history and embedded in society as a high-standing luxury fashion name then put into another’s hands – well, quite a tall order, no?
When expressed as a concern like this, it puts into perspective the brilliant success of particular designers that have managed to stand the test of time and lived up to their predecessors.
Particular expression of course goes to Mister Karl Lagerfeld who, since joining Chanel 26 years ago has more than successfully silenced any critics of his work for the company. Lagerfeld seems to be a fashion force of nature, with no chance of getting a day off to admire his work, his hand must be permanently pen to paper, if not for Chanel then for fashion favourite Fendi, in which he still designs since 1977.
It is designers such as Lagerfeld and John Galliano for Dior and Nichola Ghesquiere for Balenciaga that seem to have completely embodied said fashion houses integral vibe which has secured further development for the brands.
Yet there are other ways that designers have developed brands, few of these designers have also changed the brands for the better – Christopher Bailey’s resurrection of Burberry in 2002 has helped the brand enormously, Aquascutum’s outlook in the 1990s was negative, with profits low and much of its original allure long gone. If it wasn’t for the arrival of Graeme Fidler for menswear and Michael Hertz for womenswear, in 2004, the company’s future was looking doubtful.
What caused these changes in fashion? A lot can be said about social change and the economy which whether change is invited or not, has altered the fashion industry in many different ways. After all where would we be today if Amelia Bloomer hadn’t spoken out, if Dior hadn’t created the ‘New Look’ and if Yves Saint Laurent decided against ‘Le Smoking’ Tuxedo. All these designers have impacted on the fashion industry immensely but now it falls upon the new designers to take influences and aspire for change in fashion. For a fashion house to change designer, it is not only an ambitious and scary prospect, it is one that takes much thought and deliberation. Many established houses have stayed with their original designers, however many of these companies were created when older fashion houses were beginning to switch designers. From the 1970s – Sonia Rykiel, Diane von Furstenberg, Jean Paul Gaultier, Paul Smith and Prada through to the 1980s – Vivienne Westwood, Dolce & Gabbana, Marc Jacobs and Emporio Armani all have no successors.
Many old fashion houses have recent changes to their company, yet it would be hard to tell to the untrained eye. Lanvin and Hermes have, throughout time, stuck to their original design yet with Alber Elbaz and Jean Paul Gaultier taking the reins.
There is a need for innovation within the industry, to allow natural change and development, but there is also a need for classic designs, to hold together the structure of the industry, and to remind designers of the true innovators in the fashion industry and the need to keep that flowing, as, after all, it is what made the fashion houses, and you can’t argue with that.
